Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy with the Storz Modulith SL20: the First 500 Patients

Liston, T. G.; Montgomery, Βruce; Bultitude, Matthew; Tiptaft, R. C.

doi:10.1111/j.1464-410x.1992.tb15589.x

Cited by 44 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Germany, there has been a decreasing use of ESWL for larger pelvic stones and an increasing use for smaller calyceal and ureteral calculi [16]. In the US Cooperative Study published in 1986, 36% of the stones were smaller than 10 mm [7], whereas in recently presented studies in more than 50% of the patients calculi were less than 10 mm in diameter [16, 17, 18]. These data demonstrate that there is a trend for treating small calyceal calculi.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Renal Stones by Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: Despite the extensive experience with minimal invasive stone therapy, there are still different views on the ideal management of renal stones. Materials and Methods: Analysis of the literature includes more than 14,000 patients. We have compared these data with long–term results of two major stone centers in Germany. The results have been compared concerning the anatomical kidney situation, stone size, stone localization and observation time. Results: According to the importance of residual fragments following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), we have to distinguish between clinically insignificant residual fragments and clinically significant residual fragments (CIRF). 24 months following ESWL stone passage occurs as a continous process, and if there are no clinical symptoms, any endoscopic procedure should be considered as overtreatment. According to these results, stone–free rates of patients increase in longer follow–up periods. Newer ESWL technology has increased the percentage of CIRF. Conclusion: We consider ESWL in most patients with renal calculi as first–line treatment, except in patients with renal calculi bigger than 30 mm in diameter.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of Renal Stones by Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One reason is that residual fragments were initially considered as successes of the ESWL and were even included in the rate of stone–free patients. In fact, a review of the literature reveals highly fluctuating success rates ranging from 50 to 90% making a comparison of data quite impossible [1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30]. Also, in most studies there was a marked heterogeneity of patients regarding cases, size selection and follow–up criteria.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural History of Residual Renal Stone Fragments after ESWL

Candau¹,

Saussine²,

Lang³

et al. 2000

European Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Results are reported using the guidelines of the first UK consensus conference on lithotripter terminology, held between 75 and 90% [6][7][8][9]. However, there have been few comparisons between PCN and ESWL for treating in 1989 [14].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case‐control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Saxby

Sorahan

Slaney

et al. 1997

British Journal of Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the relative efficacy of percutaneous (P=0.001). ESWL results were also affected by re-treatment rates, which were influenced by distance nephrolithotomy (PCN) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in clearing stones and to examine of the local hospital from the lithotripter. The results with PCN improved with experience. The results of factors which affected the results from each treatment. Patients and methods The study comprised 390 patients ESWL were satisfactory and the treatment cheaper, with a lower morbidity and hospital stay than after treated with PCN who were compared to 618 patients treated with ESWL. Unconditional logistic regression PCN for stones <2 cm in diameter, making it the treatment of choice. However for stones >2 cm, the analysis was used to compare the odds of success and failure in the PCN group with those in the ESWL results of ESWL were not as good and costs of treatment, morbidity and hospital stay were much closer group, whilst controlling for any potential effects of age, sex, laterality, presence of other stones, previous to those of PCN for similar sized stones. Conclusions PCN is more effective than ESWL in clearing stone history, pre-operative treatment and centre. Results PCN was more successful in obtaining satisfacstones. However, ESWL is an effective treatment and is usually the treatment of choice for most stones. tory results than ESWL, with an odds ratio of 2.67 (P<0.001, 95% confidence intervals 1.84-3.87). The Nevertheless, PCN remains an important and extremely effective method of treatment. The choice odds ratio in favour of PCN was increased after controlling for differences by centre (odds ratio 5.18, of treatment for stones will be influenced by the distance of a centre from a static lithotripter, and the 95% confidence intervals 2.89-9.16). No other factors significantly influenced the odds ratio. ESWL was less potential availability of a mobile lithotripter. Keywords Lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, successful in treating stones >2 cm in diameter compared to treating stones <2 cm in diameter case-match control study ESWL as the treatment of choice in view of the lower

show abstract

Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy with the Storz Modulith SL20: the First 500 Patients

Cited by 44 publications

References 7 publications

Treatment of Renal Stones by Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

Treatment of Renal Stones by Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

Natural History of Residual Renal Stone Fragments after ESWL

A case‐control study of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About